Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Adjacent communities. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:NeighbouringCommunities with Template:Adjacent communities.
NeighbouringCommunities is pretty much the exact same as Adjacent communities, just with a different compass. We could put an option in Adjacent communities to change the text at the center to some other text or picture, to fully match and integrate NeighbouringCommunities. TL;DR, almost the same template. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 23:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard to align tables to the right with the floatright class. This template is broadly similar but picks a different value for the margin. It has very little use (359 translusions) considering how many articles use a right-aligned table. For the sake of consistency in styling and markup, this should be deleted and replaced with the class="floatright" class on tables that are using it (and substed anywhere that isn't appropriate). User:GKFXtalk 21:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unused after I merged it with 2006–07 Women's National Cricket League season, 2007–08 Women's National Cricket League season, ... Frietjes (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete after substituting. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been already added to Power-to-weight ratio Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2021 May 29. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was do not merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Random article with Template:Random page in category.
{{Random article}} is nearly identical to {{Random page in category}}. {{Random article}}, however, uses a tool that displays an error when opened and only has 6 total transclusions. I propose we merge {{Random article}} into the far popular {{Random page in category}} to avoid using a non-functional toolforge link. TGHL ↗ 22:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I created the article when I was translating and importing portals from German Wikipedia. It's a transalation of de:Vorlage:Zufälliger Artikel. The idea was to generate random articles from a category for the portal to keep it 'fresh', so it's a portal tool if you like. I have no problem merging this provided the new template can generate the same effect. Bermicourt (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose merge as it stands, as {{Random article}} explicitly gets a random article from a specified category and its subcategories. {{Random page in category}} only works on the category (and not subcategories). This would cause issues on categories such as Category:Anime which the link should give any random anime related article, instead of one of the currently four articles which are present in the category. As {{Random page in category}} uses an external tool which does not allow subcategory inclusion this means the behaviour cannot be merged. Although {{Random article}} isn't working, simply merging won't keep current intended behavior. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons as Dreamy Jazz. Casspedia (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).